finding common - cpaws€¦ · finding common. ground. six steps . for tackling climate change and...
TRANSCRIPT
F I N D I N G
COMMONG R O U N D
SIX STEPS
FOR TACKLING
CLIMATE CHANGE AND
BIODIVERSITY LOSS
IN CANADA
canadian parks and wilderness society
CPAWS
2
FINDING Common GROUND
CONTENTS
Summary 3
1. Nature-Based Climate
Solutions in Context 7
2. Making Nature Count in
Climate Policy: Key Challenges 13
3. Building a Bridge Between
Conservation and Mitigation:
A Six-Step Roadmap 21
Conclusion 32
3Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
Climate change and biodiversity loss are among the most pressing
challenges the world faces. Human activity, including industrial
farming, logging, mining, hydro-electric development, and oil and
gas exploration, have caused these twin ecological crises1, which are
closely interrelated. Climate change is also a significant threat to
biodiversity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
estimates that a 1.5° C average temperature rise may put 20—30%
of species at risk of extinction2.
Canada has already experienced a 1.7° C increase in temperature since 1948—
twice the global average. Several recent reports document alarming declines
in biodiversity across the country3. Canadian governments at all levels have
pledged both to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions causing climate
change and step up measures to protect biodiversity. However, efforts to date
have fallen short, in part because policymakers persist in treating the two issues
separately. As a result, Canada is missing a critical opportunity to meet its
international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement and biodiversity
commitments under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
SUMMARY
Ph
oto
: Mario
Beau
regard
Beau
stock / A
lamy
4
FINDING Common GROUND
About this Report: Making Nature Count in Climate Policy
Canada’s vast forests, grasslands, oceans and wetlands are part of the climate
change solution. These ecosystems support our everyday wellbeing and, by
their existence, have already absorbed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
helped mitigate the impacts of climate change on Canadians. But they could do
much more. By reducing our industrial footprint on our ecosystems, we could
substantially reduce the GHG emissions and biodiversity impacts that result
when natural landscapes are changed or degraded and increase their resilience
to climate change. Figure 1 provides examples of GHG emissions from land use
impacts in Canada.
Figure 1. Ecosystem Emissions in Canada: Too Big to Overlook
Reducing human-driven land use change in Canada’s ecosystems, especially wetlands, offers a potential
treasure trove of emission reductions with significant biodiversity benefits. For example:
Land use emissions from converting forests to cropland in 2015 equaled about 2,658 kilotonnes (kt) CO2 equivalent (eq)4, or the equivalent of 512,000 passenger cars being driven for a year5.
Since 1990, Canada’s managed forests have sequestered 860,000 kilotonnes (kt) less CO2 eq, or about 30,000 kt CO2 eq a year on average, or the equivalent of 5.9 million passenger cars being driven6.
To date, at least 1900 km2 of peatland have been affected by oil and gas exploration in Alberta, increasing annual methane emissions by 4.4-5.1 kt above undisturbed conditions and lasting for decades7. The annual emissions are equal to driving around 30,000 passenger cars for a year.
Oil sands mining and in situ production will disturb an estimated 500 km2 and 2,400 km2 of the boreal forest, respectively, between 2012 and 20308. The impacts include up to 182 million tonnes of ecosystem GHG emissions over 18 years, or the equivalent to driving up to 35 million cars for a year.
+ 512,000 cars/year of added CO2
+ 5,900,000 cars/year of reduced CO2
+ 30,000 cars/year of added CO2
+ 35,000,000 cars/year of added CO2
=
=
=
=
5Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
Definition of Terms
Climate change mitigation actions:
Efforts to reduce or prevent GHG emissions or enhance GHG sinks.
Emission reduction actions:
Actions that limit/prevent GHG emissions or enhance removal of GHGs from the atmosphere
compared to a set baseline and following accounting rules.
Nature-based climate solutions*:
Managing ecosystems such as forests and wetlands in ways that mitigate climate change and/
or its impacts and maintain or increase biodiversity values.
Carbon sink:
A natural or artificial reservoir that absorbs and stores the atmosphere’s carbon. Examples
include coal, oil, natural gases, and methane hydrate. Biological sinks include peatlands,
forests, soils and oceans.
GHG source:
Any natural process or human activity through which a GHG is released into the atmosphere.
Carbon sequestration:
The process of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide into a sink. This process can
be geological or biological.
Ecosystem GHG emissions:
The release of GHGs when an activity disturbs carbon stored in biological sinks, such as soil or
trees.
Natural infrastructure:
Ecosystems, such as wetlands, grasslands, and forests that provide multiple ecosystem
service benefits that can decrease the need to build more GHG-intensive and costly built
infrastructure to protect our communities from climate change impacts. Natural infrastructure
can help communities be more resilient to climate change by reducing flood and drought risks,
improving water quality, and improving food security. Natural infrastructure projects may also
have GHG emission reduction benefits.
* Nature-based climate solutions are actions to manage ecosystems in a way that reduces climate change impacts and improves biodiversity. Nature-based climate solutions may mitigate climate impacts in multiple ways, including increasing human resilience to climate change. This paper, however, focuses narrowly on GHG emission reductions. It is also vital than any proposed solutions also consider Indigenous Peoples rights’ and knowledge.
Ph
oto
: An
dre B
enz / U
nsp
lash
6
FINDING Common GROUND
In this brief, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) provides
a high-level roadmap for policymakers and scientists to harness ecosystem
conservation to deliver win-win climate and biodiversity benefits, summarized in
Figure 2. Specifically:
• Section 1 highlights the imperative and opportunity for nature-based climate
solutions—such as protecting and restoring ecosystems—to accelerate climate
action in Canada.
• Section 2 summarizes the policy and technical barriers to deploying nature-
based climate solutions. These barriers include: a lack of policies that
recognize, and hold responsible, the main players responsible for ecosystem
emissions; the challenges policymakers encounter in considering nature-
based solutions as mitigation options; and shortcomings in GHG accounting
methodologies which may not fully capture the emission reduction potential
of such solutions.
• Section 3 proposes a six-step roadmap for policymakers (Figure 2) to build
a bridge between conservation and climate policy in order to capture and
promote nature-based emission reductions.
A more detailed analysis of challenges and solutions described in Sections 2 and
3 is provided in a complementary technical report to be published in late 2019.
Ph
oto
: William
Bro
oks / A
lamy
7Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
Figure 2. Bridging Conservation and Mitigation: A Six-Step Roadmap for Federal Policymakers
1. Increase the ecosystem emission reductions to be achieved by 2030 in Canada's commitments under the Paris Agreement. Describe the role of nature-based climate solutions for reducing those emissions.
2. Start a Nature-Based Climate Solutions Fund to invest in a range of activities that aim to reduce emissions from land-use change and ecosystem degradation and deliver biodiversity bene�ts.
3. In parallel, develop: a) GHG accounting rules for assessing emission reductions and mitigation
options that explicitly consider nature-based approaches.
b) National rules for assessing the biodiversity impacts of the solutions proposed for addressing GHG emissions.
4. Identify the public and private sector players that generate the greatest ecosystem GHG emissions in Canada, starting with activities that cause land-use change (such as deforestation) and result in long-term changes to ecosystems.
6. Expand the sources covered by the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to include the ecosystem emissions generated by major emitters identi�ed in Step 4.
5. Require federal agencies to screen all their proposed climate solutions for both ecosystem emissions and biodiversity impacts.
$
8
FINDING Common GROUND
Global Imperative, Conservation Opportunity
In October 2018, the IPCC concluded that the world must take wide-
ranging and aggressive action by 2030 in order to stabilize global
warming well below 2°C and avoid its worst impacts9. Meeting this
deadline will require rapid scaling up of measures both to reduce
GHG emissions caused by human activity and to increase carbon
sequestration and storage. At the same time, the natural world is
facing an unprecedented risk of species extinction due to human
activity, requiring urgent efforts by governments to scale up action
to protect and restore ecosystems10. Scientists estimate that species
are disappearing at up to 10,000 times the natural extinction rate11.
In the face of these twin global challenges, many countries are turning to nature-
based climate approaches to reduce GHG emissions and capture atmospheric
carbon while slowing the loss and degradation of species-rich ecosystems.
Conservation scientists claim that these types of solutions——protecting and
better managing forests, wetlands and grasslands, peat restoration and improved
crop management——could provide around 30% of near-term climate mitigation
needs if adopted globally12 (see Figure 3).
1. NATURE-BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS IN CONTEXT
Ph
oto
: An
nie S
pratt / U
nsp
lash
9Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
Around the world, governments are designing such interventions to deliver
multiple benefits for people and the environment, including climate mitigation
and adaptation, biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource
management. To date, 40 governments have committed to protecting forests,
slowing deforestation and/or restoring forestlands in national climate plans
submitted under the Paris Agreement13.
Figure 3. The Global Potential for Nature-Based Solutions
Source: Griscom et al, Wiley online library, March 2019; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.14612
Where Canada Stands
To its credit, Canada was an early signatory to the Paris Agreement. Canadian
governments at all levels have recognized the urgent need to address climate
change and have focused on reducing industrial GHGs. As of April 2019, they
had implemented measures that place 80% of fossil fuel emissions under either
federal or provincial price caps. However, Canada is not currently on track to
meet its Paris Agreement goals. The latest UN Emissions Gap Report warns that
the country’s GHG emissions trajectory is “well above” its pledged target of a
30% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, while Canada’s Auditors General
3.9 PgCO2e yr1
3.0 PgCO2e yr1
0.1 M km2 yr1 24.7 M km2 2.3 M km2
1.3 PgCO2e yr1 1.9 PgCO2e yr1 0.5 PgCO2e yr1 3.0 PgCO2e yr1 0.6 PgCO2e yr10.9 PgCO2e yr1 0.004 PgCO2e yr1
3.8 PgCO2e yr1 3.6 PgCO2e yr1
Protectfrom loss
ProtectForests
RestoreForests
RestoreWetlands
ProtectWetlands
ProtectGrasslands
ManageTimberlands
Better
ManageCroplands
Better
ManageGrazing
Lands Better
Improvemanagement
Restorenative cover
10
FINDING Common GROUND
estimate that 2020 emissions will be “nearly 20 per cent above the target”14.
This shortfall may be even worse than it appears. The GHG emissions assessed
when setting the national target do not include the growing emissions from
changes occurring to ecosystems due to climate change, such as increased fires
occurring in unmanaged forests and melting permafrost15. As a result, unless
Canada strengthens climate action, the UN-led global stock take in 202316 will
likely find that efforts to meet national goals have been insufficient.
On the nature conservation side, Canada has a critical role in protecting global
biodiversity, housing approximately 30% of the world’s boreal forest, 20% of
its freshwater resources, the world’s longest coastline and one of the largest
marine territories17. Over the past four years,
Ottawa has made significant progress on
conservation. Achievements include increasing
marine protected areas from 1% to 13.82%
of Canada’s ocean and launching significant
initiatives such as the Pathway to Target One
on land. This initiative brings together federal,
provincial, territorial and local governments,
and Indigenous peoples tasked to implement
an effective network of terrestrial protected
areas. This process is backed by a “Nature
Fund”. However, there is still much work to be
done. Based on mounting scientific evidence,
the global conservation community is pressing for 30% of lands and oceans to
be part of networks of protected areas by 2030 as a critical milestone towards
reversing the biodiversity crisis.
As Canada struggles to meet climate and conservation targets, the reality of
biodiversity loss and climate change is hitting home. Rising temperatures and
sea levels are bringing droughts, floods, record-breaking forest fires and higher
storm surges to communities from British Columbia to Nova Scotia18. Canada’s far
north is experiencing even greater warming than the rest of Canada19——its annual
average temperature is already 2° C higher since 1948——resulting in widespread
melting of permafrost, with subsequent release of GHGs. Around the country,
native species from butterflies to walruses face shrinking or shifting habitats.
Species are facing significant declines caused by multiple pressures, led by habitat
loss due to industrial footprint20. Given that Canada’s average temperatures may
soar a further 6.3 °C on current emissions trends, its people and ecosystems will
face devastating impacts without greater national and global action21.
Against this alarming backdrop, many Canadians recognize the need to broaden
efforts to reduce both GHG emissions and biodiversity loss, and to prioritize
actions where these two goals align. Time is of the essence, since intensifying
climate impacts are increasing stress on the ecosystems that house biodiversity,
store carbon and support people.
Ph
oto
: Marc B
ruxelle / A
lamy
11Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
Embracing Nature-Based Climate Solutions
In principle, federal, provincial and territorial governments have all endorsed
ecosystem-based approaches as a strategy to combat the climate challenge.
Under the 2016 Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change,
the governments committed to “protecting and enhancing carbon sinks including
in forests, wetlands and agricultural lands”22. In Canada’s 2018 GHG emissions
projections, the authors estimate that ecosystems should provide 24 Mt of
emission reductions towards meeting the 2030 climate goal. While there are
a few initiatives that combine mitigation and biodiversity objectives, such as
British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest Agreement23, these remain few and
far between, and there are no clear initiatives to generate emission reductions
beyond the current trends.
Part of the challenge is that federal, provincial and territorial policymaking for
climate and biodiversity continues to take place on twin tracks. To translate the
Pan-Canadian framework into wider on-the-ground action, Canada needs legal
frameworks that recognize emissions from ecosystem degradation and loss, and
establish how conservation approaches and the associated climate mitigation
benefits will be measured. Until this occurs, industrial activities that impact
ecosystems and release GHGs will continue apace.
Ph
oto
: Mario
Beau
regard
Beau
stock / A
lamy
Ph
oto
: Serg
ey Pesterev / U
nsp
lash
To unlock progress on nature-based solutions for climate mitigation,
policymakers must overcome a series of interconnected policy and
technical challenges, including gaps in science and GHG accounting
methodologies. These challenges include: (1) lack of accountability
for GHG emissions from exploiting forests, wetlands and other
ecosystems; (2) recognizing that not all biodiversity conservation
measures will deliver GHG emission reduction outcomes and vice
versa; and (3) the need to address how, despite an uncertain future,
ecosystems can still provide mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
These challenges are explored briefly below.
Challenge 1: Lack of accountability for GHG emissions from exploiting forests, wetlands and other ecosystems deters nature-based climate policy solutions and creates perverse incentives.
The first, and biggest, stumbling block to more effectively harnessing Canada’s natural systems to combat climate change is a lack of policies that hold to account those whose actions release GHG emissions by destroying or degrading ecosystems. These emitters include both private sector actors such as mining and oil and gas companies and public sector agencies responsible
12
FINDING Common GROUND
2. MAKING NATURE COUNT IN CLIMATE POLICY: KEY CHALLENGES
Ph
oto
: Ryan
Sto
ne / U
nsp
lash
Table 1. National Inventory of GHG emissions: Land Types and Tracked Activities
Types of land Activities considered when quantifying the emission or sequestration effects
Forest land Managed forests and lands converted to forests; includes forest growth and anthropogenic disturbances related to forest management but excludes fire and most insect disturbances
Cropland Management practices on land in annual crops, summer fallow and perennial crops (forage, specialty crops, orchards); immediate and residual emissions from lands converted to cropland
Grassland Managed agricultural grassland (including tundra)
Wetlands Peatlands disturbed for peat extraction or land flooded from hydro reservoir development
Settlements Forest and grassland converted to built-up land (settlements, transport infrastructure, oil & gas infrastructure, mining, etc.); urban tree growth
Harvested wood products
Use and disposal of harvested wood products manufactured from wood coming from forest harvest and forest conversion activities in Canada
Source: Reproduced from Canada—National Inventory Report 1990–2016—Part 3 Table A9- 1 (Environment and Climate
Change Canada 2018, p.9)
13Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
for infrastructure such as roads, power lines and hydro development in wilderness areas. This failure means that these emissions will continue. In some cases, this lack of accountability could also create perverse incentives in climate policy. For example, if the Clean Fuel Standard did not capture emissions from land use changes when assessing the mitigation value of the alternative fuels——now included in the latest draft——the full impact on GHG emissions from the alternative fuels would be underestimated24. Documenting the ecosystem GHG footprint of players that have a significant impact on Canada’s ecosystems, as has been done for fossil fuels, would support the development of appropriate new policies, regulations and initiatives to cap and reduce these emissions. This, in turn, would open the door to scaling up conservation-based climate mitigation solutions and reducing perverse incentives that may harm biodiversity and abet climate change.
Canada’s national system for tracking GHG emissions (the National Inventory Report) already captures many of these ecosystem emissions (see Table 1).
Ph
oto
: Desig
n P
ics Inc / A
lamy
14
FINDING Common GROUND
The inventory provides a starting point for policymakers to assess where emission reductions are needed. In addition, policymakers should use the best available information to quantify emissions from other known carbon pools and human activities, making use of available estimation approaches, whether or not they are included in the national inventory. For example, emissions from mosses when harvesting forests25 and from activities in saltmarshes and on peatlands other than peat extraction26 represent emission sources that are not currently included in the national inventory. Where there is existing or potential industrial activity in areas currently considered “unmanaged forests”, these should also be considered using the best available information.
Challenge 2: To achieve legitimate win-win benefits, policymakers must recognize that not all biodiversity conservation measures deliver GHG emission reduction outcomes and vice versa.
Assessing nature-based climate solutions alongside other mitigation options is
not a simple task. Where conservation measures prevent, stop, or mitigate human
activity that degrades an ecosystem and/or the diversity of species it houses,
such measures often deliver a climate benefit, since human activity releases
the carbon stored in a forest or wetland or reduces an ecosystem’s ability to
sequester carbon. Calculating whether conservation measures will reduce GHG
emissions overall, and for how long, however, is more complicated, and dependent
in part on the rules for how the emission reductions will be estimated.
For example, creating a protected area to preserve native grasslands from
clearing for agriculture may mean a reduction in emissions if no additional
lands are cleared, thereby reducing the total rate of land use change and the
Ph
oto
: Bran
do
n S
mith
/ Alam
y
15Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
related emissions. However, if measures to address food needs are not addressed
concurrently, one area of grassland may be protected only to see another
cleared for food production, resulting in fewer or no GHG emission reductions.
From a biodiversity perspective however, there may be specific value related to
one place being protected instead of another. This risk of shifting activities is
why some studies have found that, unless demand-side issues are addressed,
reducing ecosystems emissions to or below historic levels, may be impossible27.
Similarly, initiatives to reduce GHG emissions can end up having a negative
impact on biodiversity, which in turn can generate emissions down the road.
For example, some academics and forest product companies advocate using
trees as fuel for heat or power instead of fossil fuels. While academics disagree
about whether this approach would reduce GHG emissions28, there would also be
adverse biodiversity impacts. Since healthy ecosystems are critical to Canada’s
ability not only to mitigate but also to adapt to climate change, such initiatives
could undermine our wider climate and biodiversity goals and commitments.
These complexities demonstrate that the metrics of success for a conservation
activity and a GHG mitigation activity do not always perfectly align and may even
drive incompatible outcomes. To address this paradox, CPAWS proposes that
federal, provincial and territorial agencies screen climate solutions that affect
ecosystems for biodiversity impacts and establish national rules to assess such
biodiversity impacts, as well as explicitly consider nature-based climate solutions
as a potential mitigation option when assessing how to reduce GHG emissions.
Ph
oto
: Hem
is / Alam
y
16
FINDING Common GROUND
Challenge 3: The uncertain future of ecosystems undermines support for nature-based climate solutions.
Forests, wetlands and other ecosystems are not static. They change over time
and are subject to natural disturbances such as pest outbreaks and wildfires, as
well as human activities like logging and development, which can intensify future
natural disturbances. Draining peatlands to replant trees, for example, may leave
those ecosystems more vulnerable to fires. The impacts of climate change on
Canada’s ecosystems add another layer of uncertainty in predicting how our
ecosystems will look in the future. For example,
one hundred different models seeking to quantify
the future of fires in the Canadian boreal forest
came up with a wide range of predictions29. This
variation presents a challenge for estimating
the effectiveness of nature-based solutions
for reducing GHG emissions over time and for
assessing the extent to which efforts to store the
carbon off the land base (e.g. in harvest wood
products) would result in an emission reduction
in the future.
Often this uncertainty is used to argue against
relying on ecosystems to sequester and store
carbon, or to emphasize the limits to which
they can be part of the solution. In some cases,
it is also used to help justify increased impacts
on the ecosystem in the name of climate
mitigation. For example, the forest products
industry and its supporters point to increased
natural disturbances as a reason to focus on
storing carbon in harvested wood products and
substituting wood in construction industries for
more energy-intensive products such as concrete.
Sceptics of nature-based climate solutions also
use uncertainty in three other related arguments. The first is that Canadian
ecosystems, especially forests, no longer sequester carbon at the same scale
as before, or may even be a source of emissions due to increases in natural
disturbances or the forest age. The second is that nature-based solutions may
not be permanent since future natural disturbances, such as fires, may release
GHGs and undo the benefits of curtailing human activity. The third is that
forests and other ecosystems untouched by industrial activities have a slowing
rate of sequestration due to their maturity. These arguments have led to calls to
harvest mature forests, store the carbon in wood products, and leave younger
forests to start again to sequester carbon.
These arguments and the related proposed solutions are misleading. Scientific
Ph
oto
: Cavan
/ Alam
y
Ph
oto
: Stefan
o P
oliti M
arkovina / A
lamy
17Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
Challenge 3: The uncertain future of ecosystems undermines support for nature-based climate solutions.
Forests, wetlands and other ecosystems are not static. They change over time
and are subject to natural disturbances such as pest outbreaks and wildfires, as
well as human activities like logging and development, which can intensify future
natural disturbances. Draining peatlands to replant trees, for example, may leave
those ecosystems more vulnerable to fires. The impacts of climate change on
Canada’s ecosystems add another layer of uncertainty in predicting how our
ecosystems will look in the future. For example,
one hundred different models seeking to quantify
the future of fires in the Canadian boreal forest
came up with a wide range of predictions29. This
variation presents a challenge for estimating
the effectiveness of nature-based solutions
for reducing GHG emissions over time and for
assessing the extent to which efforts to store the
carbon off the land base (e.g. in harvest wood
products) would result in an emission reduction
in the future.
Often this uncertainty is used to argue against
relying on ecosystems to sequester and store
carbon, or to emphasize the limits to which
they can be part of the solution. In some cases,
it is also used to help justify increased impacts
on the ecosystem in the name of climate
mitigation. For example, the forest products
industry and its supporters point to increased
natural disturbances as a reason to focus on
storing carbon in harvested wood products and
substituting wood in construction industries for
more energy-intensive products such as concrete.
Sceptics of nature-based climate solutions also
use uncertainty in three other related arguments. The first is that Canadian
ecosystems, especially forests, no longer sequester carbon at the same scale
as before, or may even be a source of emissions due to increases in natural
disturbances or the forest age. The second is that nature-based solutions may
not be permanent since future natural disturbances, such as fires, may release
GHGs and undo the benefits of curtailing human activity. The third is that
forests and other ecosystems untouched by industrial activities have a slowing
rate of sequestration due to their maturity. These arguments have led to calls to
harvest mature forests, store the carbon in wood products, and leave younger
forests to start again to sequester carbon.
These arguments and the related proposed solutions are misleading. Scientific
Ph
oto
: Cavan
/ Alam
y
assessments have shown that even if wood substitution—taking into account
numerous assumptions—does lead to emission reductions, it would often do so
decades into the future. Inversely, taking measures to lessen forest disturbance
and deforestation reduces emissions immediately, especially if supported with
demand-side measures. Whether such emission reductions will later be impacted
by fires or other disturbances is, of course, a risk. However, there are policy
means to address these risks, such as limiting nature-based climate mitigation
initiatives in ecosystems that are especially vulnerable to pests or fires.
Moreover, while it is important to know whether a forest, tundra or peatland
is currently a GHG source or sink as a result of natural disturbances when
considering the scale of action required, that does not change the responsibility
to curtail the human activities that exacerbate GHG emissions and restrict the
ecosystem’s ability to recover and sequester carbon again in the future.
Critics of nature-based solutions also ignore the broader ecological impacts and
long term GHG implications of their proposals. For example, uncertainty also
surrounds how Canada’s ecosystems will recover from industrial activities and
display future resilience to climate change once impacted by human activities.
Conservation scientists have found, for example, that some older forests are more
resilient to climate change30 and that there are potential resilience benefits for
ecosystems evolving due to natural disturbances rather than industrial activities31.
18
FINDING Common GROUND
One additional, and undoubted complication in embarking on ecosystem-focused
climate mitigation is that the emissions impacts often occur over lengthy time
periods. When land is disturbed——compressed when used as a winter road,
for example——the full GHG emissions impact may continue for decades if the
ecosystem’s ability to sequester carbon is impaired. On the flip side, when a tree
is planted or a wetland restored, it takes many years before such actions reduce
GHG emissions from the atmosphere.
The lesson for policymakers is that avoiding ecosystem emissions——for example,
by reducing industrial activity——is a more immediate climate solution than
ecosystem restoration. However, common accounting methodologies such as
lifecycle GHG assessments often overlook the timing of potential emission
reductions, which can lead to flawed decision making.
None of these challenges are arguments against nature-based climate solutions,
but rather for improved GHG emissions and sequestration accounting. In the
next chapter, we propose the development of ecosystem accounting rules with
specific tools to address the uncertainties described above.
Ph
oto
: Peter L
lewellyn
(L) / Alam
yP
ho
to: B
ill Bro
oks / A
lamy
How can the federal government overcome these challenges?
CPAWS is proposing six steps that would allow policymakers to
implement actions that would support both climate and biodiversity
goals. Many of these actions could be taken in parallel.
Step 1: Increase the ecosystem emission reductions to be achieved by 2030 in Canada’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. Describe the role of nature-based climate solutions for reducing those emissions.
Canada states in its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris
Agreement that carbon sequestration may help the country meet its 30% by
2030 GHG emissions target. However, to date efforts have focused on reducing
emissions generated by fossil fuel use. Increasing our goals for reducing
ecosystem emission reductions by 2030 beyond what is listed in our current
projections32 would focus long overdue attention on activities that cause
such emissions. Committing to nature-based climate solutions would indicate
a willingness to find and advance activities where biodiversity and climate
mitigation benefits intersect. The timing for announcing the intent to achieve
these additional emission reductions is ideal, since all countries must submit
enhanced NDCs to the UNFCCC in 2020.
19Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
3. BUILDING A BRIDGE BETWEEN CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION: A SIX-STEP ROADMAP
$
Ph
oto
: Desig
n P
ics Inc / A
lamy
20
FINDING Common GROUND
In addition, clarifying Canada’s approach to meet its climate commitments using
nature-based solutions would:
• Demonstrate to the international community that Canada is taking specific
actions to reduce land use, land-use change, and forestry emissions in
addition to fossil fuel emission reductions. This will strengthen the country’s
standing and approach over the next dozen years.
• Send a signal to domestic stakeholders, including the sectors responsible for
significant ecosystem emissions, that ecosystem emission reductions are a
national priority.
• Flag that Canada will consider both biodiversity and climate change needs
when assessing climate actions that impact forests, grasslands, wetlands and
other ecosystems.
CPAWS proposes that the federal government establish and pursue actions to
reduce ecosystem-based emissions reductions in parallel with those to reduce
fossil fuel emissions. This separation would enable the development of policies
that recognize the distinct role of ecosystems in the carbon cycle and increase
the overall ambition of our climate actions. This approach will also bring
opportunities to reduce overall emissions more quickly and in ways that support
the national agenda to protect biodiversity.
Ph
oto
: Ash
ley Co
op
er pics / A
lamy
21Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
Step 2: Start a Nature-Based Climate Solutions Fund to invest in a range of activities that aim to reduce emissions from land-use change and ecosystem degradation and deliver biodiversity benefits.
Implementing a federal fund that targets nature-based climate mitigation
solutions would be a vital step in advancing policy to reduce ecosystem
emissions and protect biodiversity. A one billion dollar fund would allow
Canada to generate emissions reductions beyond those currently projected
that would help us meet our 2030 target. Early estimates are that such a fund
could generate an additional 20 Mt of ecosystem emission reductions (further
information is available at www.cpaws.org). While the criteria for eligible projects
should focus on GHG emissions reductions and biodiversity benefits, they would
likely deliver additional outcomes, such as bolstering climate resilience for
people and ecosystems.
CPAWS proposes that Environment
and Climate Change Canada
manage and finance such a fund.
Its mission should be to identify and
support public and private sector
players seeking to pilot a range
of viable approaches for reducing
emissions from land-use change and
degradation. Sample schemes might
include solutions to reduce or prevent
road development in wetlands and
peatlands, or adapt farm activities
or food management practices to reduce agricultural spread into grasslands and
forests. On a bigger scale, the fund could enable municipalities to work together
to implement policies to protect and restore natural infrastructure in a watershed.
To be effective and to provide meaningful results, these solutions should be
implementable at a landscape scale and on a long-term basis. Consideration
should also be given to projects seeking to reduce GHG emissions by addressing
the demand for food, fuels, and other goods that drive land-use change.
The goal of the fund would be to demonstrate that such activities can effectively
perform the services required both for addressing climate change impacts and
protecting biodiversity. This, in turn, would build confidence in the value of such
approaches compared to other types of GHG mitigation or adaptation options. In
addition, these pilot projects would support development of assessment criteria
needed to help such activities become more mainstream (see Step 3).
To generate momentum for nature-based climate action across Canada, the
fund should be additional to existing finance options. It should therefore be
designed so that it does not overlap with potential funding for ecosystem-related
emissions reduction projects through the upcoming federal offset program.
$
Ph
oto
: An
drew
Co
leman
/ Alam
y
22
FINDING Common GROUND
Given its dual climate and biodiversity focus, the fund should not overlap
overmuch with the more biodiversity-focused projects financed by the Nature
Fund or large ($20 million minimum threshold) adaptation projects supported
by the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF), where GHG emissions
reductions and biodiversity are not explicitly considered. Instead, the Nature-
Based Climate Solutions Fund should provide opportunities to trial complex
nature-based GHG mitigation projects that do not fit neatly into the criteria of
other programs. Finances should also be channeled into scientific and policy
research to support the development of innovative nature-based climate
mitigation projects that could inform future approaches, regulations and policy.
Step 3: In parallel with implementing the fund, develop:
a) GHG accounting rules for assessing emission reductions and mitigation
options that explicitly consider nature-based approaches.
As described in Section 2, assessing the mitigation value of actions that impact
ecosystems can be challenging. Some methodologies may overlook and/or may
be inadvertently biased against nature-based climate solutions, leading to an
underestimation of their value. It is critical that Canada’s federal agencies, led
Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators, GHG Emissions from
Large Facilities.
Figure 4. Potential Model for Registry of Ecosystem GHGs Major Emitters: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities, Canada, 2017
$
23Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
by Environment and Climate Change Canada, continue to develop and apply
improved tools and methodologies to address the specific accounting challenges
presented by potential climate solutions that impact ecosystems. Solutions are
available, but need to be thought through carefully and build on internationally
recognized methodologies, as has been done for our national inventory.
Government officials and project developers could use these accounting
requirements in many policy contexts and sectors, raising the level of comfort
and certainty around both the biodiversity and emission reduction values of GHG
mitigation actions under consideration. However, while improved accounting
methods will facilitate better decision making, policymakers will still face trade-
offs in deciding between different emissions reduction options.
Key topics that accounting rules for assessing GHG emissions in the context of
nature-based solutions must address include:
i) Baselines. In deciding whether to adopt a potential nature-based solution,
should activities only be recognized if they immediately reduce emissions?
Or should conservation activities that will reduce emissions in the long-
term also be counted? These questions will be important, for example, when
considering if the creation of new protected areas will have an emissions
reduction value.
ii) Accounting boundaries. These need to be set in ways that do not bias
decision makers against nature-based solutions. Many current models
encompass wide-ranging indirect effects of mitigation activities, which are
based on numerous assumptions and lead to uncertainty about emissions
reduction impacts. These models also tend to focus on the human changes
resulting from a given action, such as the emission-generating activities
simply shifting to another location, but do not consider the ecological impacts
of activities on the ecosystem. As a result, both the positive impacts of
nature-based solutions and the negative impacts of industrial solutions are
often underestimated.
Ph
oto
: Desm
on
d S
imo
n / U
nsp
lashP
ho
to: S
culptu
re Qo
de / U
nsp
lash
24
FINDING Common GROUND
iii) Permanence. As highlighted in Section 2, the changing nature of
ecosystems, and the prospect of natural disturbances such as pest outbreaks
and wildfires, present a challenge for estimating the long-term impacts of
nature-based climate solutions. However, policymakers can take advantage
of numerous risk-mitigation methods to address this concern. As a first
step, all levels of government could set separate fossil fuel and ecosystem
emissions reduction targets. Having a separate ecosystem emissions
reduction target would ensure that the ecosystem emission reductions would
be in addition to, and not a substitute for, fossil fuel emission reductions. At
the project level, additional risk management approaches, such as creating
buffer GHG emissions pools as an
insurance strategy, could be added.
Such approaches and safeguards will
help persuade those focused on GHG
emissions reduction values to take
nature-based solutions and strategies
seriously.
iv) Timing. Since not all climate
mitigation solutions deliver the same
impact, it is essential that national
requirements for assessing mitigation
options favor those that maximize
climate and biodiversity benefits.
For example, reducing activities that
fundamentally change a carbon-rich
ecosystem delivers an immediate
positive impact for climate and
biodiversity. Restored wetlands, on
the other hand, need time to become
a carbon sink again. As a result,
restoring wetlands will not deliver immediate mitigation impacts, but can
have immediate benefits for biodiversity and mitigating climate impacts by
reducing flooding.
v) Addressing uncertainty. Any model used to help assess the emission
reduction potential of a given strategy or action must make best-guess
assumptions about likely changes in human behavior and resulting effects
on emissions. Models must also consider how ecosystems might change or
react to management strategies over time, adding an additional layer of
complication to the assessment. In considering any strategy that impacts
ecosystems, modelers should therefore provide clear information to decision
makers on how assumptions and uncertainty (such as the frequency of future
fires) may affect findings and potentially change the selection of a mitigation
strategy.
Ph
oto
: Ad
ob
e
25Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
vi) Assessing issues related to demand. One of the main arguments against
nature-based solutions is the finite nature of Canada’s lands and the need to
use these resources to produce essential goods, such as food and fuel. One
common assumption is that demand for these goods will increase and that
the key question facing policymakers is how to deliver an increasing amount
of food, fuel and other necessities in the least GHG-intensive way possible.
However, research has shown that, to reduce ecosystem GHG emissions
to the extent needed to meet climate goals, countries must consider
alternative strategies for addressing demands that impact land-use change
or management, such as reducing food waste33. In order to implement nature-
based solutions to reduce ecosystem GHG emissions at a large scale, it will be
vital for policymakers and project managers to mitigate concerns related to
such demands. While not strictly an accounting issue, failing to consider this
issue risks leaving society unable to find adequate and lasting solutions to
climate change mitigation and biodiversity loss.
b) National rules for assessing the biodiversity impacts of the solutions
proposed for addressing GHG emissions.
The above recommendations seek to build a bridge between conservation and
climate mitigation through the lens of GHG accounting. How a mitigation activity
affects biodiversity should be assessed separately, since not all conservation
actions deliver the same biodiversity outcomes, and climate actions that affect
ecosystems do not all produce the same biodiversity impacts. It is not in this
report’s remit to propose what such requirements should look like. Rather,
CPAWS urges the federal government to develop such rules on the grounds that
they would improve the biodiversity outcomes of all climate mitigation activities
that impact land-use in Canada.
Ph
oto
: Karen
Bu
rgess / A
lamy
Ph
oto
: Tim
En
nis / A
lamy
26
FINDING Common GROUND
Step 4: Identify the public and private sector players whose activities generate the greatest ecosystem GHG emissions in Canada, starting with activities that cause land-use change (such as deforestation) and result in long-term changes to ecosystems.
Once an ecosystem emission reduction target has been set, federal, provincial
and territorial strategies for reaching them must center on reducing emissions
from the most significant GHG sources. As shown in Table 1 (see page 13),
Canada’s national GHG inventory already identifies the land-use changes and
activities generating ecosystem emissions, and in some cases which sectors
are responsible at a national scale. These activities include forest management;
conversion for settlements, transport, and oil, gas and mining infrastructure;
peatland extraction; flooding for hydro reservoirs; and the use and disposal of
harvested wood products.
However, the national inventory does not specify the actors responsible for
these emissions around the country, nor their scale on a case-by-case basis.
To help develop laws, regulations, and policies that will generate emission
reductions, the federal government should categorize individual sources, such
as companies or public sector agencies, by volume of ecosystem GHG emissions.
Environment and Climate Change
Canada’s existing system for categorizing
facilities producing significant fossil
fuel emissions could serve as a model
(see Figure 4). This information would
support setting emission thresholds for
land-use change and management for
the actors identified, as well as setting an
appropriate cap and price on terrestrial
GHG emissions (see Step 6).
When pinpointing high-level emitters and
their activities, CPAWS recommends that
governments separate GHG emissions
from land-use change or conversion*
(such as road construction) and land
management (such as forest harvesting).
This separation is useful because quantifying emission reductions from land
management activities is a more complicated exercise, due to the time-scale
challenges discussed earlier. Efforts to identify and address both categories
of emissions could proceed in parallel, allowing time to develop appropriate
and effective accounting approaches to address these challenges. In addition,
$
* Note, the definitions of deforestation and land-use change used in the national inventory may be too coarse for domestic policy implementation, and may not capture some of the finer-scale land-use changes occurring that may still result in significant GHG emissions, such as emissions from peatlands being disturbed by the creation of winter roads and seismic lines.
Ph
oto
: Ch
ristop
her K
olaczan
27Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
$
$
assessments should identify whether the activities generating ecosystem
GHGs are stand-alone or continuous. For example, a forestry company may
harvest trees over decades, whereas a mining company might implement
several infrastructure projects, but not on an annual basis. This identification
is necessary because it impacts how high-level emitters are defined and helps
determine which tools would be most effective for managing emissions.
Step 5: Require federal agencies to screen all their proposed climate solutions for both ecosystem emissions and biodiversity impacts.
As highlighted in Section 2, not all GHG mitigation activities that involve land-
use change or land management benefit biodiversity. Sometimes, the metrics
of success for a conservation activity and a GHG mitigation activity do not
align well and may even drive incompatible outcomes. Given the imperative for
Canada to meet both its climate and conservation commitments, safeguards are
needed to ensure that policies, programs, and projects for reducing ecosystem
emissions deliver win-win outcomes for nature and climate. To this end, CPAWS
proposes that the federal government, together with relevant provincial and
territorial counterparts and individual experts, including Indigenous Peoples
with traditional knowledge, develop rules to assess such biodiversity impacts.
In addition, we recommend that relevant federal agencies screen all climate
solutions for biodiversity impacts. These steps are essential for maintaining the
healthy ecosystems that are critical to Canada’s wellbeing and prosperity, as well
as for mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Step 6: Expand the sources covered by the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, during its upcoming review, to capture the ecosystem emissions generated by major emitters.
Once the government has pinpointed key sources of ecosystem emissions
(Step 4), the next step is to work with relevant industries and public sector
agencies to identify low-cost methods for reducing their carbon footprint. One
approach would be for provinces and territories to implement their own laws
Ph
oto
: Do
min
ik Vanyi / U
nsp
lash
28
FINDING Common GROUND
and regulations to mandate emission reductions. Corporate-level caps could be
set for GHG emissions from land-use change and/or management and a cap-
and-trade system could be established for emitters. Alternatively, provinces
and territories could adapt existing laws and policies to generate systemic
emission reductions. For example, provincial and territorial governments could
develop regulations that would limit the development of new roads on peatlands,
require alternative road and roadside practices by forestry companies, or stop
any activities that would degrade wetlands. They could also require that any
project with a significant ecosystem footprint be assessed, and its owners held
responsible for any GHG emissions that would result. In addition, governments
could require developers to assess whether projects that impact ecosystems
would reduce ecosystem services
downstream, such as water quality
or flood control. If so, the developer
could also be required to estimate the
GHG emissions that would result from
replacing these ecosystems services
with built infrastructure and be held
responsible for those emissions.
All these policy tools would require clear
accounting rules for assessing mitigation
options that have an ecosystem GHG
emissions impact and methods for
quantifying the GHG emissions resulting
from the loss of ecosystem services (see
Step 3 above).
However, if provincial and territorial actions are insufficient to meet the goals of
reducing ecosystem GHG emissions to achieve the Paris Agreement, the federal
government could also expand the sources covered by the Greenhouse Gas
Pollution Pricing Act. The legislation currently addresses GHG emissions from the
largest fossil fuel emitters by requiring them to meet a benchmark for tonnes of
GHG emissions per unit of output and putting a price on emissions beyond that
benchmark. While this represented a major step forward in tackling national GHG
emissions, there is more to do. CPAWS believes that expanding the Act to cap
ecosystem GHG emissions caused by land-use change and significant ecosystem
degradation and generated by high-level emitters would have an enormous
impact. By fundamentally changing how land-use management decisions are
made, this step would help to more systematically address Canada’s climate
change and biodiversity crises. The mandatory review of the Greenhouse Gas
Pollution Pricing Act in 2022 presents ideal timing to implement this expansion,
enabling policymakers to incorporate the lessons learned from the steps above in
revising the Act’s provisions.
Ph
oto
: Mcken
zie Toyne / U
nsp
lash
29Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
CONCLUSION
While nature-based solutions are not the only approach to reducing
Canada’s carbon footprint, they offer a valuable and overdue
strategy to help combat climate change while protecting our
nation’s unique biodiversity. Given the pressing climate change
challenge, taking action to reduce GHG emissions from ecosystems,
alongside existing and new steps to reduce fossil fuel emissions,
would strengthen Canada’s prospects for meeting its commitments
under the Paris Agreement.
In particular, reducing land use change that destroys forests, grasslands and
wetlands would bring direct, immediate and quantifiable positive impacts for
biodiversity and addressing climate change. Restoring natural environments and
their ecosystem functions, meanwhile, would deliver significant mid-to-long-term
value for both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Making this happen will
require conservation and climate focused actors in the public and private sectors,
academia and civil society to work together to identify and prioritize solutions
that deliver dual climate and biodiversity benefits.
Ph
oto
: Peter M
ather P
ho
tog
raphy
30
FINDING Common GROUND
To pursue and scale such solutions, policymakers must continue to generate
improved and more comprehensive information on the ecosystem GHG emissions
from industrial activities. This will enable them to set ecosystem targets that
support and expand Canada’s current climate goals, to factor such emissions into
how they regulate land use and extractive industries, and to create incentives to
reduce emissions.
Collaboration on common approaches for GHG accounting and biodiversity
assessment rules will deliver frameworks to clearly assess where actions that
impact our lands will bring mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
The roadmap laid out in this report provides the federal government with a
way to bridge the climate-conservation gap. By bridging this gap, the federal
government will be able to deliver effective, quantifiable nature-based climate
mitigation solutions that the country urgently needs.
Ph
oto
: Desig
n P
ics Inc / A
lamy
31Canadian Parks and Wi lderness Society
Six Steps for Tackling Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Canada
Endnotes1 Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES 2019. https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment-biodiversity-ecosystem-services
2 Cited by WWF at https://www.wwf.org.uk/effectsofclimatechange
3 See for example Living Planet Report Canada: A national look at wildlife loss, WWF 2017. http://www.wwf.ca/about_us/lprc/
4 Environment and Climate Change Canada. Canada—National Inventory Report 1990–2016. http://www.publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.506002/publication.html
5 Comparative car emissions in the table calculated using https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
6 Environment and Climate Change Canada. Canada—National Inventory Report 1990–2016. http://www.publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.506002/publication.html
7 Strack, M., et al. 2019. Petroleum exploration increases methane emissions from northern peatlands, Nature Communications, 10: 2804 doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10762-4
8 Yeh, S., Zhao, A., Hogan, S., Brandt, A.R., Englander, J.G., Beilman, D.W., & Wang, M.Q. (2015). Past and Future Land Use Impacts of Canadian Oil Sands and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Davis, CA. UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies
9 Special Report Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
10 Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES 2019. https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment-biodiversity-ecosystem-services
11 Center for Biological Diversity; https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
12 Natural Climate Solutions, PNAS; Griscom et al., 2017 ; https://www.pnas.org/content/114/44/11645; Also Letter to the Editor, Wiley, March 2019; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14612
13 Counting on Nature: How governments plan to rely on ecosystems for their climate strategies, IDDRI Issue Brief; Laurans, Ruat, and Barthelemy 2016. https://www.iddri.org/sites/default/files/import/publications/ib0516_yl-et-al_sfn_indc_en.pdf
14 Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada: A Collaborative Report from Auditors General, March 2018; http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_otp_201803_e_42883.html
15 Quantifying the impacts of human activities on reported greenhouse gas emissions and removals in Canada’s managed forest: conceptual framework and implementation. Kurz et al. 2018; https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0176#.XP_LFVVKh0w
16 See article 14 of the Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
17 Center for Biological Diversity; https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
18 a. CBC News website; https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-storm-surges-worries-queens-municipality-mayor-1.4563359 b. The Impacts and Costs of Drought to the Canadian Agriculture Sector, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; https://www.drought.gov/nadm/sites/drought.gov.nadm/files/activities/2018Workshop/8_3_CHERNESKI-Agricultural_Drought_Impacts_Canada.pdf c. Climate Reality Project ; https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-climate-change-affecting-canada
19 Canada’s Changing Climate Report, 2019; https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/
20 Living Planet Report Canada: A national look at wildlife loss, WWF 2017. http://www.wwf.ca/about_us/lprc/
21 Canada’s Changing Climate Report, 2019; https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/
22 Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, 2017, p3; https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/pan-canadian-framework.html
23 See https://www.naturebank.com/projects/great-bear-forest-carbon-project/
24 See https://www.pembina.org/blog/clean-fuel-standard-framework
25 Bona, Kelly Ann, James W. Fyles, Cindy Shaw, and Werner A. Kurz. “Are Mosses Required to Accurately Predict Upland Black Spruce Forest Soil Carbon in National-Scale Forest C Accounting Models?” Ecosystems 16, no. 6 (September 2013): 1071–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9668-x
26 Strack, M., Softa, D., Bird, M., Xu, B. 2018. Impact of winter roads on boreal peatland carbon exchange, Global Change Biology, 24: e201-e212, doi: 10.1111/gcb.13844
27 Williams, David R., Ben Phalan, Claire Feniuk, Rhys E. Green, and Andrew Balmford. 2018. “Carbon Storage and Land-Use Strategies in Agricultural Landscapes across Three Continents.” Current Biology 28 (15): 2500-2505.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.087
28 See for example: Lamers, Patrick, and Martin Junginger. 2013. “The ‘Debt’ Is in the Detail: A Synthesis of Recent Temporal Forest Carbon Analyses on Woody Biomass for Energy.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 7 (4): 373–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1407; Buchholz, Thomas, Matthew D. Hurteau, John Gunn, and David Saah. 2016. “A Global Meta-Analysis of Forest Bioenergy Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting Studies.” GCB Bioenergy 8 (2): 281–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12245; Laganière, Jérôme, David Paré, Evelyne Thiffault, and Pierre Y. Bernier. 2017. “Range and Uncertainties in Estimating Delays in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Forest Bioenergy Sourced from Canadian Forests.” GCB Bioenergy 9 (2): 358–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12327; and Liptow, Christin, Matty Janssen, and Anne-Marie Tillman. 2018. “Accounting for Effects of Carbon Flows in LCA of Biomass-Based Products—Exploration and Evaluation of a Selection of Existing Methods.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, January, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1436-x
29 Boulanger, Yan, Marc-André Parisien, and Xianli Wang. “Model-Specification Uncertainty in Future Area Burned by Wildfires in Canada.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 27, no. 3 (2018): 164. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17123
30 Dominik Thom et al, The climate sensitivity of carbon, timber, and species richness covaries with forest age in boreal–temperate North America, Global Change Biology (2019). DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14656
31 Disturbance Ecology in the Anthropocene. Newman, Erica. Perspective Article. Front. Ecol. Evol., 10 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00147
32 Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2018 Canada’s Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions Projections. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/eccc/En1-78-2018-eng.pdf
33 See Williams, David R., Ben Phalan, Claire Feniuk, Rhys E. Green, and Andrew Balmford. 2018. “Carbon Storage and Land-Use Strategies in Agricultural Landscapes across Three Continents.” Current Biology 28 (15): 2500-2505.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.087 or Searchinger, Timothy D. (2018). Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Na-ture (London). (564)7735. p.249
506 - 250 City Centre Ave | Ottawa, ON K1R 6K7Unceded Algonquin territory
www.cpaws.org
For further information, contact:
Front cover photo: Panther Media GmbH / Alamy | Back cover photo: Irwin Barrett
Graphic design: Roger Handling
Acknowledgements: Lead author Florence Daviet, CPAWS. Support author and editor, Polly Ghazi.
This research was supported with funding from the Metcalf Foundation.